I haven't ranted about anything in a while; so now I look to the public. If you have a topic in mind that you feel should be expanded on with Artemis at the helm, post it in the comments of this post. If I like your idea, I'll work with it. If you want, you can even give me a side of an issue to argue about, even if I don't agree(It's practice for my writitng class).

Just a few notes:

1. Do not try to get me to re-post something that I've already posted. I admit, it would be amusing for me to somehow argue about how rips are awesome, (which would probably be impossible); however, the reason I posted this in the first place is because I want some new flavour in my mouth.

2. Try to avoid common polarizing issues. We all know that I support gay marriage. We get that. The issue is that a lot of these issues have already been sorted out but the more serious concern is that an opinion of one side is based on some form of religous belief. I don't want to bother with abortion, gay marriage, or how short the skirts are on today's cheerleader. There's no point in arguing against fundamental belief because belief in itself does not need to be rational.

That's it. Have at ye!

EDIT: Yeah, some of you may have seen when I tried to use BBCode instead of HTML. I sorry :'(

"A trolley (i.e. in British English a tram) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?"

I personally would not flip the switch, but I'm willing to argue either side if you feel you have a clever argument.

I am sorry, but I probably wouldn't provide any cleverness on this argument. Mainly because of my mindset. I liken it to humanity in its more primal state. I find people often delude themselves, beliving that they are some "higher being" when to me, we are all of kingdom animalia and we all boil down to instinct.

2 Statements - Descending Order of Priority

1. I care about people I care about
2. I care about myself

So I would only care about the people if someone I cared (or someone of benefit to me) about was tied to either track. If someone I cared about was tied to both tracks, I would flip a coin.

Not much morality here, I'm afraid.

Fun Fact: Today I was pondering making a sort of discussion game, similar to the saloons of France in the Enlightenment period. I haven't decided yet, but I'm leaning towards not making it because I feel that it's too much of a chat game, and if I wanted a chat game I could just use what's available.

1) Humans are animals who believe they are elevated above other species and, in their arrogance, have invented a system of values which determines what's "right" and "wrong".

Okay, maybe morality is a human fad, but why is this arrogant? Here are two facts about humans: (a) we have an inborn, biological conscience (I recently read a study about this) (b) we are intelligent enough to think about why we do the things we do. Given these two facts, why is it 'arrogant' to ask ourselves, what is the right way to act?

2) People you don't care about don't matter.

Let's consider a different scenario: if a child you don't know was tied to track A and you could safely avert the trolley to track B hurting nobody (the person tied there managed to escape some while ago), would you do it? Personally, I'm quite convinced you would. But why?

3) If people I cared about were tied to both tracks, I would flip a coin.

What if your girl(boy?)friend was tied to track A, and a somewhat distance acquaintance was tied to track B? Would you still flip a coin?

What if a billionaire (who intends to give you several billion dollars should you save him) was tied to track A, and your mother to track B? Would you still flip a coin? What if that billionaire was a genie (lol) capable of granting you a wish (that doesn't include resurrection or other kinds of 'cleverness')?

What if you were tied to track A, and everyone you ever cared about were tied to track B. Would you still flip a coin?

I don't believe you would, at least in the first two scenarios. This shows that your reasoning here is at least not as trivial as flipping a coin. Some other factor is in the works. But if that factor isn't morality, what is it? Based on what do you make your choices in these scenarios? I am especially interested in your answer to the third.

Now that some questions were raised, let's consider a well-known variant of this story:

"As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"

Would you do it? Would you do it if the people tied to the track are people you cared about? What if you needed to push an entire family (say, going out for a holiday) - the husband, the wife, their three children - to stop the track (e.g. push an equivalent amount of people to those tied in the track). Would you flip a coin?

It's arrogant because it propogates to animals. Example? "Animals have no soul."

Anyway most of this is irrelevant because who determines right and wrong? For me, I do. And my right and wrong are generally for the greater good of myself. Mother vs. Billionaire? With a lot of funding I can make my future quite a bit better. Mother? She's served her purpose, to birth me. Significant other? Neither one really matters, since one can always find another significant other.

The coin is a very good way to pick between two choices. Which is why I like it. I always carry a coin and two dice on me, because what are the odds that I will need to make a decision with more than twelve choices?

It's arrogant because it propogates to animals. Example? "Animals have no soul."

Nobody said animals have no souls. What do you mean morality propagates to animals?

I don't understand why you think asking ourselves what is right, and how to do the right thing, is somehow arrogant.

Anyway most of this is irrelevant because who determines right and wrong? For me, I do. And my right and wrong are generally for the greater good of myself. Mother vs. Billionaire? With a lot of funding I can make my future quite a bit better. Mother? She's served her purpose, to birth me. Significant other? Neither one really matters, since one can always find another significant other.

So you would not direct the trolley and let the child die conscience-free? You'd kill your mother if it meant becoming rich?

The coin is a very good way to pick between two choices. Which is why I like it. I always carry a coin and two dice on me, because what are the odds that I will need to make a decision with more than twelve choices?

I hope you're aware rolling two dice will not have equal distribution between 1-12. The chances of getting a 12 are 1/36, for example, but you'll get a 6 1/7 of the time.

I think it's arrogant because the thought of morality is an attempt to raise oneself above others. Let me ask you, what is the point of having a "right" and "wrong"? What's the point of the difference? What is the point of being more right than wrong or vice versa? I interpret this as what are commonly known as "bragging rights".

Eh, the child will live or die depending on whether or not I felt like re-directing the trolley. And yes, my mother's life is not worth more than my future. My future is the most important thing to me. There is research that I must do, books to read.

And yes, two dice does mean 6 1/7 of the time. But I don't HAVE to roll both. I can roll one if I desire.

Anyway most of this is irrelevant because who determines right and wrong? For me, I do. And my right and wrong are generally for the greater good of myself. Mother vs. Billionaire? With a lot of funding I can make my future quite a bit better. Mother? She's served her purpose, to birth me. Significant other? Neither one really matters, since one can always find another significant other.

That sounds kind of, sad..
If each person thought their right or wrong was the ultimate right or wrong, there would be a lot of wrong ruled as right, you could go out and kill someone who angered you with no sense of guilt for hurting people your not close to. Everyone is thinking the same as you are, believe it or not many people have been where you are (on your viewpoint on life) and many have left that because it's empty and so...dumbfounded, it really wouldn't make you much different from an animal if you lived your life that way. (Not saying that you Would be an animal, just not much different in thought-set)

I don't think there's anything cool about seeing others as nothing or disposable (though some manga cartoons make it seem like it's a cool guy thing, but it's really not.), then you can drift into the Hitler mindset, I'm a better "breed" of human and so I have the right to dispose of the lesser breeds.

The coin is a very good way to pick between two choices. Which is why I like it. I always carry a coin and two dice on me, because what are the odds that I will need to make a decision with more than twelve choices?

Then your allowing a coin or dice to determine your life? You set your life choices on random chance and let that rule, so believe it or not that kind of stems from New Age in the sense that what happens is just part of the universe or part of nature or whatever. (didn't look up new age, but I thought their into that nature/natural stuff.) Your just thinking the way the college/school teacher taught you to think, and they were taught, but I wouldn't listen to that mess. Darwin himself said that Evolution was false, yet people decide to run with it, why? Because nothing matters and they flipped a coin? Not exactly, those people had a goal in mind and wanted people to think their nothing different from animals because they wanted to keep the truth as far as possible. Why would they want to conceal the truth? Well there's someone behind that as well.

Oh don't take me too seriously. I'm trying to argue a pre-destinationist self-centered position (though I do mix some of my own personality in). It's so much more amusing to play devil's advocate. And yes, my argument is that there is no right and wrong as a whole, just right and wrong for each individual.

And actually, my entire argument was totally against "better breeds." Believing that one set of rules is "the right rules" actually LEADS to a Hitler mindset.

I'm not saying that there isn't a set of morals that each society has vaguely agreed to. But morality is an iffy subject. It's like law. There are a bunch of things people generally agree on, but there's room for interpretation.

Also, living life by flipping a coin is equally valid to living one's life by the Bible. There's no "one way" to live your life. If I want to live my life deciding whether or not to go outside by the number of squirrels I count on a particular branch of a tree, that's my decision. You may not agree, but it's just as valid as your decision to live your life by going to work every day.

And actually, my entire argument was totally against "better breeds." Believing that one set of rules is "the right rules" actually LEADS to a Hitler mindset.

I agree with you, one set of rules can lead to that mindset if that set of rules is flawed, but what determines if one set of rules is more right or wrong than another? What if Hitler was right, what if brutal mass slaughtering was only a small price to pay for his idea of right, does that really make him wrong? What determines if he's wrong and why do we think he's wrong? What if we're wrong to think he was wrong and what determines if what we're thinking about what he did as right or wrong? Who even came up with the idea to think of life as beautiful or something worth protecting? Certainly it wasn't the animals who attack and kill those close to them or at least permit them to be around them. But hey, even animals cherish life sometimes, but why is that and why would life be something of value?

Also, living life by flipping a coin is equally valid to living one's life by the Bible. There's no "one way" to live your life. If I want to live my life deciding whether or not to go outside by the number of squirrels I count on a particular branch of a tree, that's my decision. You may not agree, but it's just as valid as your decision to live your life by going to work every day.

I think what your speaking about there has something more to do with multiple areas, I don't believe there's One way to live life where everyone must drive to work everyone or everyone must glace out the window checking for the next Squirrelpocalypse. There are obviously different ways to live. If you talking about being lost and not knowing with way to go, your guess is as good as a randomly flipped coin anyway, so why not? The Bible supposedly has lessons, truths, and 'ways' to live your life in the sense of what you should and shouldn't do, a lot of it is good advice too, but different as well (Example: If people got married before sex, their wouldn't be so many single pregnant women who are only one person paying for everything and if people didn't divorce, well they wouldn't have to spend thousands to leave each other, if people loved each other despite their flaws and decided to stick it out with each other despite their differences they wouldn't "need" to get a divorce, though some divorces are reasonable.) and the USA was built on biblical laws which prospered it. (Though it was Never perfect or Really great for that matter.)

I think it's arrogant because the thought of morality is an attempt to raise oneself above others. Let me ask you, what is the point of having a "right" and "wrong"? What's the point of the difference? What is the point of being more right than wrong or vice versa? I interpret this as what are commonly known as "bragging rights".

I have two incompatible answers:

a) There is no point in acting "rightly", it's a goal in and of itself. As human beings we want to understand the a notion of good, and live by it.
b) It is possible that "right" and "wrong" are norms our society defines in order to allow it to function better. Anything which aids, or is considered to aid, our society is good, whereas anything which harms it is bad. So right and wrong are evolutionary tools that are designed to allow us to form a society.

On a related note, we never impose morality on animals - or at the very least I've never seen anyone claiming a dog, or a lion can be evil.

Your argument is basically:

1) There is no such thing as "good"
2) Morality claims to define what "good" is
:: Therefore all theories of morality are arrogant.

My problem is with the first premise. Why do you think there isn't such a thing as goodness? You seem to be dismissing all attempts to define goodness, but you haven't given a good reason for why goodness doesn't exist. Let's define goodness as b). Why is this arrogant? It seems to play well with your argument about humans acting through instinct - in particular the instinct of survival.

Eh, the child will live or die depending on whether or not I felt like re-directing the trolley. And yes, my mother's life is not worth more than my future. My future is the most important thing to me. There is research that I must do, books to read.

So you'll seriously kill your mother for money.

And yes, two dice does mean 6 1/7 of the time. But I don't HAVE to roll both. I can roll one if I desire.

"I always carry a coin and two dice on me, because what are the odds that I will need to make a decision with more than twelve choices?" - I'm assuming you roll two dice when you have 12 choices.

It's not impossible to define "good". It's impossible to subjectively define "good". In Asia, women are subservient. These women would be appalled by the "evil" of women in the United States being so much more free. And yes, my interpretation is that morality determines what "good" is. Therefore, since "good" cannot be subjectively defined, morality depends on the person. A variant definition is useless to me unless I can define how the definition varies.

No, no one imposes morality on animals (other than humans) but they do use it to justify being superior to other animals. My view is that humans should not believe that they are any more important to the world than any other animal.

There is actually an issue with this, because it turns out that a study done on chimpanzees (or some primate) turned up that these primates actually do have some sense of morality. (I can dig up the article if you like)

Essentially, I need to reduce morality into a function. But you can't, because of the way it works.

For the purpose of this argument, yes. I would kill my mother. (In reality, my mother committed suicide about 15 years ago)

A coin can decide between two choices.
A die can decide between 2-6 choices.
Two dice can decide between 2-12 choices. So yes, your interpretation is correct.

You mean objectively? A subjective definition for good is whatever you want it to be. Actually, I don't think morality can be objectively defined either, at least in the sense that there is absolute evidence in reality for one system of morality and not another. However, I think there is nonetheless some evidence that a certain system of morality is preferable to another (see later in this post), at least if you agree with definitin (b) in my previous post, and I also believe that people can in general agree (at least very broadly) on the moral principles that they should follow. For example, most people would agree that murder is evil. Thus there is at least some possibility of broadly measuring what people consider moral.

In Asia, women are subservient. These women would be appalled by the "evil" of women in the United States being so much more free.

This is obviously a very broad generalisation which does not hold for all parts of Asia (I live in Asia). And even in the parts where it does, a lot of women - quite possibly the majority - would feel that they are being treated unjustly.

No, no one imposes morality on animals (other than humans) but they do use it to justify being superior to other animals. My view is that humans should not believe that they are any more important to the world than any other animal.

This is not a problem of morality but a problem of a certain group of people, who might be using morality to justify their superiority. You may agree or disagree with their self-designation, but it has nothing to do with morality in and of itself.

There is actually an issue with this, because it turns out that a study done on chimpanzees (or some primate) turned up that these primates actually do have some sense of morality. (I can dig up the article if you like)

All the better. Then morality (or more accurately, conscience) is something that at least to some extent exists in nature. That's evidence against your argument that morality is entirely subjective, is it not?

Essentially, I need to reduce morality into a function. But you can't, because of the way it works.

Who says you can't? Assuming you mean, reduce morality into a function that can assign to every behaviour a measure of its goodness, that's what certain systems of morality purport to do.

If there is only one choice then there is no need to decide which choice, it has been made for you. As for the chances, well, if every chance was fair, it wouldn't be "luck" would it?

I was just picking an example. The point was, the issue with morality is that it depends on feelings, which cannot be reduced to a general form (true for all cases).

What is morality? Doing good (I guess). I need to help the world! So I start by killing off 1 animal every hour. By doing this for an extended period of time, I can effectively save Earth from overpopulation (as long as I am careful in which animals I kill). While I am "saving" the Earth, someone else would argue that I am "detroying it." So who is right?

Here's a choice for you. Using your own example, suppose a litter of kittens was tied to one track, and a baby tied to the other. Which do you save?